Withdraw 4,969,231 ada for Cardano Enterprise Adoption: Ticketing Platform
119 DReps voted · 39 with a rationale · 4 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Abstain584.2M ₳Rationale
"Yoroi DRep votes ABSTAIN on Withdraw 4,969,231 ada for Cardano Enterprise Adoption: Ticketing Platform. Yoroi recognises the importance of responsible governance during periods of ecosystem uncertainty.
- Ecosystem Situation: The trust our delegators place in Yoroi requires that we act only when we can do so with full confidence. In light of the current situation, Yoroi is choosing to withhold its vote on this proposal and will reassess our position once conditions allow for a considered decision."
- No435.8M ₳Rationale
Please check the following link for the reasons for the vote.（投票理由は次のページを参照してください。)
- Abstain332.2M ₳No rationale
- Abstain293M ₳Rationale
"EMURGO as a DRep votes ABSTAIN on Withdraw 4,969,231 ada for Cardano Enterprise Adoption: Ticketing Platform, with rationale outlined below.
Given the ongoing situation in the ecosystem, responsible governance requires us to act with full clarity and confidence. Until the current situation reaches resolution, EMURGO prefers to withhold judgment rather than vote without the certainty our mandate demands. We will revisit this proposal once the situation is resolved."
- No254.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes222.9M ₳Rationale
We vote on Intersect budget items as we did on Ekklesia.
- Abstain92.2M ₳No rationale
- Abstain91.5M ₳Rationale
As a DRep, I vote ABSTAIN on the proposal: Withdraw 4,969,231 ada for Cardano Enterprise Adoption: Ticketing Platform.
My rationale:
I see both positives and serious concerns.
On the positive side, this proposal is connected to a real company with an existing ticketing business. Sellout appears to be a real service with real users, and Anvil is a credible Cardano development partner. I also appreciate that the proposal attempts to bring a real-world commercial use case to Cardano, which is something the ecosystem should generally welcome.
However, I remain skeptical about the actual added value of blockchain in this specific use case.
A tokenized ticket has clear value before the event, but after the event, its utility becomes much weaker. Unless there is a concrete loyalty, collectible, or future-access model, the NFT mostly becomes an expired ticket record. The proposal does not sufficiently explain why this long-term on-chain footprint creates meaningful value for users or for Cardano.
There is also a more fundamental issue: owning an NFT ticket does not by itself guarantee admission to the event. The buyer still depends on a trusted third party. In this model, the NFT is not the same as owning a fully on-chain asset like ADA. It represents an off-chain promise that must still be honored in the real world.
The proposal also appears to rely heavily on custodial wallets and hidden blockchain UX. That may be good for normal users, but it weakens the self-custody argument. If ticket buyers do not manage their wallets, do not interact with Cardano directly, and continue to rely on Sellout’s system for redemption, then Cardano risks becoming a backend ledger rather than essential infrastructure.
I am also concerned about the economics of minUTxO. If every purchased ticket becomes a CIP-68 NFT, then ADA must be attached to token-bearing UTxOs. At a small scale, this may be manageable. At a larger scale, it becomes a real operational capital requirement. If old tickets remain in wallets after events, the minUTxO requirement can keep growing over time. This is a significant barrier to scaling the product.
Related to this, the proposal does not clearly explain who owns or benefits from the ADA used for minUTxO. If the wallets are custodial, then Sellout appears to control the ADA reserve required to operate the system. If this ADA is delegated, staking rewards may also accrue to Sellout unless another arrangement is clearly defined. If a customer exports a ticket to self-custody, it is unclear whether the customer receives the required min ADA together with the NFT, whether they must provide ADA themselves, or how that ADA is later recovered.
This is not a minor implementation detail. It affects user experience, capital requirements, ownership, staking rewards, and the real meaning of self-custody.
In addition, ADA locked for minUTxO should not be treated as strong economic activity or productive TVL. It is mostly operational liquidity required to make the NFT design work. It may support staking, and it may sit under the control of the custodial operator, but it is not the same as active capital used in DeFi or organic user demand for ADA.
The repayment mechanism is positive in principle, but I am not convinced it is strong enough. Based on the expected ticket volume and fee-share structure, repayment of roughly $1.09M could take many years, possibly around 15 years under conservative assumptions. That makes the repayment more like long-term upside than strong Treasury protection.
I am also uncomfortable with the Treasury funding a private company’s product development, Web2 integration, salaries, marketing, and business expansion unless the Cardano-specific value is very clear. In this case, I do not think the proposal fully proves that Cardano is necessary for the core ticketing business.
Many parts of ticketing can be implemented in Web2. Users are also not strongly motivated to take advantage of self-custody if the event experience still depends on the ticketing provider and venue.
For these reasons, I cannot vote YES.
At the same time, I do not want to vote NO because this is still a real business trying to use Cardano in a real-world service. I want Cardano to be adopted by actual companies and not only by crypto-native projects.
If the team can prove the model, generate real usage, and show that Cardano brings measurable value to organizers, artists, venues, or buyers, then this could become useful learning for the ecosystem.
Therefore, I abstain.
I would like to see a future version with a clearer explanation of why Cardano’s role in the ticketing system is important, how self-custody works in practice, how minUTxO is handled at scale, who owns the ADA attached to ticket UTxOs, who receives staking rewards, what happens to tickets after events, how users benefit from NFT ownership, and a more realistic repayment model.
I would also like to see Sellout have more skin in the game and cover part of the cost of integrating its business with Cardano.
If you'd like to support my work, consider delegating to the MANDA pool and backing me as a DRep. Your support is the only way I can get time for governance.
MANDA Pool ID:
pool1c3fjkls7d2aujud8y5xy5e0azu0ueatwn34u7jy3ql85ze3xya8My DRep ID:
drep1y2m0g4r66pyaw3p7u454wc0p4f0ygm8ueaev0mgd3tvwm7sskqwqpBuy me a beer:
https://pay.cexplorer.io/pay/c0410d5b237b6ec0 - No88.6M ₳Rationale
Ideally, I think it’s a great concept, but even if the platform were built, it would likely struggle with user onboarding and wouldn't see much usage at this stage.
- No84.3M ₳Rationale
I am unconvinced this is prudent spending given competing demands on the Cardano Treasury and how quickly the Treasury will reach zero given current spending levels.
- Abstain75.2M ₳No rationale
- No74.5M ₳Rationale
While I recognize that this proposal is backed by a real business with an existing product and user base, I do not believe the Cardano Treasury should fund the commercial expansion of a private company.
If Phase 1 has already demonstrated product-market fit, then Phase 2 should primarily be financed through business revenue or private investment. A successful commercial venture should be able to raise capital based on its own business case rather than relying on Treasury funding.
I am also concerned that this proposal includes expenses such as marketing campaigns, trade shows, and business expansion activities that are more appropriately funded by the company itself rather than the Cardano Treasury.
The Treasury should prioritize investments in public goods, open-source infrastructure, core protocols, and ecosystem-wide resources that the private market is unlikely to fund on its own.
Although this project could generate value for Cardano if successful, I do not believe it is appropriate for the Treasury to absorb the commercial risk of expanding a private business.
For these reasons, I vote No.
本提案は実際の事業基盤やユーザーを持つ企業による提案ですが、その事業拡大費用をCardano Treasuryが負担すべき理由は十分に示されていないと考えます。
既にPhase1を自社資金で開発・運用しているのであれば、Phase2についても事業収益や投資家からの資金調達を通じて実現するのが本来の企業活動です。市場性や収益性に自信があるのであれば、事業として自立して成長すべきであり、Treasuryを事業資金の代替手段として利用すべきではありません。
また、マーケティング、展示会、事業開発など、民間企業の成長投資と考えられる項目までTreasuryで負担することには賛同できません。
Cardano Treasuryは、民間企業の事業拡大を支援するためではなく、公共財やエコシステム全体が恩恵を受けるインフラ、プロトコル、オープンソース技術など、市場だけでは十分に供給されない領域へ優先的に投資すべきです。
本提案が成功すればCardanoにも利益はあるかもしれませんが、事業リスクまでTreasuryが負担することは適切ではないと判断し、本提案には反対します。
- Abstain50M ₳Rationale
Because of fundamental concerns with the current treasury process, I vote Abstain on all Treasury Withdrawal proposals until the treasury budgeting process undergoes fundamental reform.
More information: https://x.com/ada_stat/status/2068315882539921703
- No49.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes48.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes47.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes40.1M ₳No rationale
- Abstain37.8M ₳No rationale
- No36.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes34.6M ₳No rationale
- No31.4M ₳Rationale
While the proposal demonstrates clear adoption potential and strong KPI measurability, the requested amount of 4,969,231 ADA is disproportionately high for a non‑critical, non‑infrastructure initiative. This work does not qualify as life‑support infrastructure for Cardano, and the cost structure—covering extensive labor, marketing, and conference expenses—does not meet a reasonable cost‑effectiveness threshold. The repayment mechanism is USD‑denominated and dependent on future revenue, introducing uncertainty and weakening Treasury protection. For these reasons, I cannot support this withdrawal.
- No27.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes27.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes26.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes25.3M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES to Withdraw 4,969,231 ada for Cardano Enterprise Adoption. This is a good bet at market fit with an established company to mitigate risk. This proposal positions for a real shot at adoption while helping to keep the Anvil team fed through the bear. Go get 'em Cash.
- Yes23.5M ₳Rationale
Following the advice of Real Big Fish.
- Yes21.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes21.5M ₳Rationale
I vote YES on the treasury withdrawal action “Cardano Enterprise Adoption: Ticketing Platform” (35b44189eb4795d5775122da52a3a115753f83fd662dd1ff205ea633fc99b34e#0).
I voted YES for this on the Hydra Voting platform, was sad to not see it receive enough support then, but respect to the team for now trying directly on-chain instead. Similar to my support for the 5am.earth proposal – if we don’t start taking a chance on commercialisation of this chain and increasing our transaction counts then what are we even doing here. The idea of blockchain to reduce the worldwide problem of ticketing and inflated secondary sales is not new, but we have yet to see anyone solve it at scale by merging the two systems. Even the UK government, as recently as June 2026, have been pushing to explore blockchain-based ticketing for major sporting events, highlighted in a recent X post. It feels as though this is one of those “right time, right place” moments and if we don’t seize the opportunity to demonstrate a real-world implementation of a solution then we will find Cardano once again in 2-3 years watching other chains having success in this area saying to ourselves “that could have been us, remember that team that kept requesting funding for something similar in 2026”. Time to be narrative leaders instead of narrative chasers.
- Abstain21.4M ₳No rationale
- Abstain20.4M ₳No rationale
- No20.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes19.9M ₳Rationale
Ticketing is a strong use case for adoption in Cardano. I thus do support this proposal on second look. This is another use case which would benefit from Midnight integration, so I hope to see this project incorporate privacy features for the ticketing system once available through Midnight.
- Yes17.3M ₳Rationale
Withdraw 4,969,231 ada for Cardano Enterprise Adoption: Ticketing Platform
- Yes16.7M ₳Rationale
We support this proposal because it connects Cardano to a real existing ticketing business with users, events, revenue, and a clear enterprise adoption path.
Phase 1 is already live on mainnet and was funded by Sellout. Phase 2 adds a secondary marketplace, royalty enforcement, anti-scalping controls, wallet onboarding, organizer tools, audit, and public launch. The proposal also includes concrete Cardano-specific targets such as NFT tickets, on-chain interactions, new wallets, and ticket revenue settled on Cardano.
We also appreciate the treasury repayment mechanism. A 25% fee share until the treasury is repaid, followed by a smaller permanent fee, is a stronger value-capture model than most commercial adoption proposals provide.
We would still like clearer public-good guarantees around reusable infrastructure, licensing, and how other ticketing operators could use the system independently. However, the combination of existing traction, milestone-based delivery, enterprise use case, and treasury repayment makes this proposal worth supporting.
- Yes14.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes13.9M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on governance action 35b44189eb4795d5775122da52a3a115753f83fd662dd1ff205ea633fc99b34e#0.
First, I have no ongoing conflicts of interest with regards to this proposal. I have had some discussions about whether Gummiworm would be a suitable solution for the layer 2 traffic he will require, but such discussions have not materialized into anything concrete, and would not constitute direct revenue to Sundae Labs in any case.
I am strongly in support of this proposal, for the same reason I have been in support of Blockfrost, Pogun, and Eternl: commercial endeavors to bring long term sustainable revenue to the Cardano treasury, and real world usage of both Cardano and its surrounding ecosystem, are, to me, king right now.
That being said, I did have some reservations that I discussed with the team and that were received well:
This allocates nearly a third of the funds to improving the existing web2 product; If this were a company approaching a strategic investor, an 8:1 fund to company ratio would be considered fairly high, and the company would likely be asked to cover their own improvement costs and count it as their own contribution to the partnership. Structurally that is difficult for Sellout to do in this market, but that means that the terms need to be more favorable to offset.
Which segue's into the terms. This is presented as a single financial instrument, but instead, I view it as two things:
- a 0% interest, long term loan with no teeth on default
- a 5% (of whatever percentage they decide to take as a cut of the fees!) return, deferred by 5 years
Typical financing deals have between 1.35x and 1.5x payback terms over that timeframe. And 5% of 600k (assuming a sigmoid, rather than an exponential as the team has done), deferred by 5 years, has a present-value of $25-75k, a pittance.
Don't get me wrong; this is still structurally better than other proposals which are pure grants, hence my somewhat useless Yes vote.
But if Anvil / Sellout wanted to strengthen this proposal, then either raising the payback to 1.5x, adding an acceleration after 5 years, or raising the percentage cut would all do wonders for this proposal, financially.
You can find a larger writeup justifying my vote here.
- Abstain13.3M ₳Rationale
RCADA abstains on Withdraw 4,969,231 ada for Cardano Enterprise Adoption: Ticketing Platform.
This is a constructive abstention.
RCADA supports the goal of bringing real-world enterprise adoption to Cardano. Ticketing is a credible use case for blockchain because tickets, resale, royalties, transfer rules, fraud prevention, and attendance verification can benefit from transparent ownership and programmable settlement. The proposal also has meaningful positives: Phase 1 is already live on Cardano mainnet, Sellout has invested its own capital, the platform has an existing user base, and Phase 2 includes concrete deliverables such as a secondary marketplace, royalty enforcement, anti-scalping controls, wallet onboarding, organizer tools, an independent audit, public reporting, and a revenue-share repayment commitment.
However, RCADA is not comfortable giving full support to the proposal in its current form. The request is sizeable at 4,969,231 ADA, and the proposal blends public-good infrastructure with private commercial platform expansion. Treasury funds would support not only Cardano-native ticketing infrastructure, but also Web2 integration, marketing, trade-show activations, legal setup, launch activity, and commercial rollout work for a specific ticketing business.
RCADA’s concern is not that enterprise adoption is unimportant. It is that Treasury funding should be clearly tied to ecosystem-wide value. In this proposal, some outputs appear broadly reusable and public-good oriented, while others look more like normal business development costs for a private platform. That makes it harder to justify full Treasury support at this level.
RCADA appreciates the proposed repayment structure, including the commitment to repay $1,093,231 to the Treasury through a revenue-share mechanism. That is a positive feature and makes the proposal stronger than a simple grant. However, the exact revenue-base definition and payment cadence are to be finalised during contracting, and the Treasury would still be taking early execution, adoption, and commercial-risk exposure before repayment is proven.
RCADA also notes the adoption risk. Sellout’s existing user base and event pipeline are encouraging, but existing Web2 users do not automatically become meaningful Cardano users. Custodial wallet onboarding may reduce friction, but it also raises questions about user control, transparency, education, and whether the resulting activity creates durable Cardano adoption beyond one platform.
For these reasons, RCADA abstains rather than voting yes or no. This abstention is not opposition to Sellout, Anvil, ticketing, or enterprise adoption on Cardano. It is a signal that the direction is promising, but the current proposal blurs the boundary between public infrastructure funding and commercial product expansion.
RCADA would be more comfortable supporting a future version if the Treasury request were narrowed to the clearly reusable public-good components: open-source Cardano ticketing smart contracts, CIP-68 ticketing standards, royalty and anti-scalping modules, public documentation, integration guides, independent audit outputs, dashboards, policy-ID tracking tools, and a documented enterprise adoption case study. Commercial rollout costs such as marketing, trade-show activations, Web2 platform expansion, legal entity setup, and business development should ideally be funded by the company, customers, investors, revenue, or private partnerships.
On balance, RCADA sees real potential in Cardano-native ticketing, but abstains on this proposal as submitted because the public-good case is not yet cleanly separated from private commercial expansion.
RCADA's full vote assessment can be found here:
https://brolloks.github.io/rcada-drep-votes/ - Abstain10.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes10.4M ₳No rationale
- No7.6M ₳Rationale
Voting NO as currently offered
I scored this proposal using my own public rulebook and scoring system, which is available here: Cardano DRep Commercial Treasury Rule Book v11 – Intelligent Risk, Protected Infrastructure & Ecosystem Coordination Edition (https://docs.google.com/document/d/13EcIlJguBz-MJv91a3YYtb8O96K8uf9B9AOHsDOxeVE/edit?usp=sharing). The document is still evolving, but it reflects how I assess commercial and hybrid Treasury proposals.
I use AI assistance in this process because I want a scoring method that I can apply as neutrally and consistently as possible across the large number of proposals requesting funding. AI does not make the decision for me. It helps me structure the review, test the proposal against the same criteria, and spot issues I may otherwise miss. When a proposal is borderline, I look at it even more closely.
I do not support this withdrawal as submitted. The proposal has a real adoption case. Sellout is an operating ticketing company, Anvil has a visible Cardano delivery record, Phase 1 is already claimed live, and ticketing is a useful non-speculative use case for Cardano. I give the team credit for that. But v11 treats this as a very large commercial/hybrid request, not a simple adoption grant. The proposal asks for ₳4,969,231, keeps most of the customer relationship and commercial upside private, and does not give Cardano enough firm public-asset rights. The revenue share is meaningful, but the exact revenue base, receiving vehicle, cadence, and enforcement details are still pushed into M1 contracting. That is not strong enough before a vote of this size. The marketing portion also fails v11 price discipline because it lacks rate cards, vendor quotes, reusable public content/data rights, and hard retained-impact thresholds. Milestone gating, an audit, public dashboards, and Intersect/Sundae-style administration reduce risk, but they do not fix private capture, weak open-source/public-asset terms, or the opportunity cost. I would vote No / Revise and Resubmit. I would reconsider a smaller staged version with binding revenue-share terms before enactment, clear clawbacks, a public/open or protected-components schedule, independent KPI source data, stronger continuity rights, and benchmarked marketing spend.
v11 classification
Field Assessment Proposal name Cardano Enterprise Adoption: Production Ticketing Platform Applicant Anvil Development Agency, Inc. + Sellout.io Proposal type Hybrid public/commercial integration; commercial software/data platform; real-world adoption/RWA-style ticketing; separable marketing/adoption component ADA requested ₳4,969,231 Duration 8 months Correct v11 scorecard used? Yes. General Investor-Hard Scorecard for the main software/commercial build. Appendix A for the separable marketing spend. Marketing share ₳772,727, about 15.5% of the total request Main public value Potential non-speculative Cardano use: tickets, wallets, transfers, resale, royalties, check-ins, and a public case study Main weakness Very large commercial request with under-specified enforceability, weak public-asset rights, and insufficient marketing verification Vote stance No / Revise and Resubmit General Investor-Hard Scorecard — non-marketing software/commercial portion
Category Max Score Assessment Public value, additionality, ecosystem gap, and market timing 12 10 Strong use case. Real-world ticketing could bring recurring non-speculative transactions. Landscape and reuse analysis is still not deep enough for the size of the request. Team quality, traction, and adaptive execution 7 6 Anvil has visible Cardano experience and Catalyst history. Sellout appears to be a real operating business. The team is stronger than most commercial applicants. Price versus value 6 3 The budget is detailed, but the ask is large. It funds staff, private integration work, marketing, legal setup, and normal commercial expansion. Price benchmarking is weak. Applicant integrity and past delivery 8 6 Prior Anvil delivery is a positive signal. Disclosures are better than average. Some claims still need independent confirmation, especially venue contracts and revenue assumptions. Public asset, open-source, verifiability, and data rights 12 6 Audit reports, policy IDs, dashboards, and a case study help. But the core platform, user relationship, data layer, and most IP remain private. No strong open-source or forkable public asset is offered. Treasury upside, instrument fit, and risk sharing 14 10 The 25% fee share until repayment and 5% after repayment are meaningful. But exact revenue base, receiving vehicle, cadence, and enforcement are not firm enough at vote time. Very large commercial proposals need stronger terms. Milestones, verification, and anti-gaming design 13 10 Milestones are fairly concrete and include audit, testnet/mainnet evidence, reporting, and dashboards. Anti-fake-metric rules need more detail for wallets, transactions, related-party activity, and subsidized usage. Risk management, margin of safety, and obsolescence resilience 12 7 Milestone gating and Sellout’s Phase 1 co-investment help. Remaining risks include custodial wallets, privacy, ticketing compliance, venue dependency, ADA/USD volatility, and private operator lock-in. Sustainability and exit plan 8 6 Sellout could plausibly maintain the system from operating revenue. Cardano’s continuity rights remain weak if the company pivots, sells, fails, or limits access. Strategic opportunity cost, competitive neutrality, and ecosystem coordination 8 5 This could be strategically useful, but the Treasury would subsidize one private ticketing platform. Neutral access for competitors and reusable ecosystem outputs are limited. General base score 100 69 Good team and useful adoption thesis, but below the v11 bar for a large commercial withdrawal. Appendix A — Marketing & Adoption Scorecard for the separable marketing spend
Category Max Score Assessment Cardano-specific public value and strategic fit 12 9 The campaign supports a real adoption story and targets live-events industry buyers. Audience quality, not audience size 12 8 NIVA, INTIX, and Pollstar are relevant venues for the ticketing industry, but the proposal gives limited independent audience-quality evidence. Additionality, market timing, and market-failure case 10 7 Launch timing makes sense. Some spend still looks like normal private go-to-market work. Price versus market benchmarks 12 3 No rate cards, vendor quotes, sponsorship comparisons, or cost-per-qualified-lead benchmarks are provided. Applicant track record and delivery history 8 5 Big Storm appears to be a real agency and Sellout knows the market, but Cardano-specific campaign proof is limited. Concrete public deliverables and content/data rights 10 5 Educational materials and reports are mentioned, but reusable content rights, lead summaries, and source-data access are not strong enough. Conversion and retained impact 16 8 The proposal names adoption outcomes, but it lacks hard 30/60/90-day retained-impact thresholds for marketing leads and enterprise conversions. Independent verification and anti-fake-metric controls 12 6 On-chain ticketing metrics can be checked, but marketing reach, leads, audience quality, and conversion attribution need better independent verification. Co-funding, revenue share, discounts, or risk sharing 5 3 Sellout funded Phase 1 and the overall proposal includes revenue share. No clear marketing vendor discount or direct sponsor risk sharing is shown. Brand safety, conflicts, and competitive neutrality 3 2 No major red flag, but related vendor controls and neutral ecosystem access are not fully developed. Marketing base score 100 56 This portion fails Appendix A’s price, verification, public-deliverable, and retained-impact discipline. Combined v11 result
Item Result General/software score 69 / 100 Marketing/adoption score 56 / 100 Weighted diagnostic score before adjustments 67 / 100 Ecosystem Coordination Premium +1 DRep Conviction Adjustment +1 Final assessment score 69 / 100 v11 score interpretation Lean no Very-large-request threshold Fails. v11 expects 90+ or exceptional terms. Treasury-upside threshold for very large commercial proposal Fails. Scored 10 / 14, while v11 expects about 13 / 14. Public asset / open-source / verifiability threshold Fails. Scored 6 / 12, below the commercial software/data-platform bar. Risk threshold Fails. Scored 7 / 12, below the support threshold. Marketing Appendix A thresholds Fails price benchmarks, retained impact, public deliverables, and independent verification. Automatic no or revise issue Yes. The upside and public-asset package are not binding enough before the vote for a request of this size. Final vote stance No / Revise and Resubmit - YesChanged7.2M ₳History
Earlier votes
No14d agoSuperseded
- Yes5.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.4M ₳No rationale
- No3.8M ₳Rationale
I see this as a commercial endeavour which if practical should be able to obtain financing through traditional startup funding routes, and should not need public money.
As an experienced angel investor, I look at the pitch and from an investor's point of view it would be an easy no from me, and thus I can not in good faith support allocating public funds to support a business I wouldn't invest in myself.
- Yes3.1M ₳Rationale
1000% YES, we should be funding proposals like this! A real world use case for Cardano that brings transaction volume and real revenue from a proven team.
On top of this, there is a treasury repayment plan in place. Why people are voting no on this proposal baffles me. They are willing to perpetually fund research until the treasury runs dry, but won't fund an obvious asset that brings actual tx volume and real world utility for Cardano. It's crazy, I seriously hope DReps change their votes for the better. If we aren't funding proposals like this, then what is the point of Cardano as a blockchain?
Thank you Anvil and Sellout.io team, I appreciate what you are doing for Cardano and all ADA holders!
- Abstain3M ₳No rationale
- YesChanged2.8M ₳Rationale
Originally I was going to Abstain on this proposal, as I am a direct beneficiary of the contracted work.
After seeing how multiple parties have voted thus far in the 2026 governance rounds, I have decided to vote YES. My delegators expect this as supporters of Anvil.
Thank you to everyone who supports us on this mission, we can't wait to make Cardano the Ticketing Blockchain!
Earlier votes
Abstain27d agoSuperseded
Originally I was going to Abstain on this proposal, as I am a direct beneficiary of the contracted work.
After seeing how multiple parties have voted thus far in the 2026 governance rounds, I have decided to vote YES. My delegators expect this as supporters of Anvil.
Thank you to everyone who supports us on this mission, we can't wait to make Cardano the Ticketing Blockchain!